Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, August 1, 1993 TAG: 9308020368
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: B-2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By JAMES C. MILLER III
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
States, counties and cities throughout the country are turning to private contractors, as you pointed out, to curb the rapidly rising costs of incarceration. As Dana Joel reported in last month's Virginia Citizens for a Sound Economy study, Why States and Counties Across the Nation Are Privatizing Prisons and Jails and Why Virginia Should Do the Same," initial cost savings have ranged from 11 percent to as high as 39 percent. In many cases, private operators have improved the quality of the prison even while cutting costs and saving tax dollars.
The questions your editorial poses, concerning ensured government oversight and proper incentives, are valid. They should be taken seriously by the General Assembly before enacting legislation. Luckily, these issues are not new, but were first raised during prison privatization's pioneering days more than a decade ago. Today, lawmakers in the commonwealth can apply the lessons learned by the 34 federal, state, and local jurisdictions that contract with private correction enterprises to operate their facilities.
As your editorial points out, privatization does not relieve the government of its responsibility and authority over the private facility. Legislation should require that correctional agencies closely monitor the operation of the prisons, as it does in other states that have passed legislation. Contractors must agree to report periodically to correction officials and must consent to frequent on-site inspections by government officials. Moreover, they must agree to notify agency officials immediately in the event of inmate escapes, injuries, illnesses or deaths. The law should also require that an escape clause be written into the contract, allowing the government to terminate the contract should the contractor's performance fall below acceptable standards.
Regarding the question of proper incentives, it is not likely that private contractors will adopt tactics to prolong the time served behind bars anymore than private firms handling solid-waste disposal in landfills lobby against recycling, or - as privatization expert E.S. Savas has observed - operators of day-care centers lobby as a political force against birth control and abortion. The day when any prison - public or private - contains empty beds is, regrettably, light years away. But should the rising prison population taper off, the private vendor has much more flexibility than the government agency ever could have to adjust to changes in the prison population. If faced with a sharp decline in prisoners, for example, managers could reduce the number of staff.
If anything, the competitive climate that prison privatizaiton creates ensures that proper incentives remain in place. Private operators have everything to gain and little to lose by providing their inmates with the utmost in quality car. Most, if not all, private firms provide intensive rehabilitation programs, including education anbd vocational training. And some contractors already are reporting recidivism rates less than half the national average.
Finally, you ask: If such innovations (as those adopted by the private sector) are the secret to more cost-efficient prisons, why isn't the legislature insisting that the Corrections Department use them? And if red tape is adding to Virginia's astronomical prison costs, why not act immediately to cut what can be cut? These are fair and pertinent questions. Only the legislature can answer them. But until it does, privatization could at the very least create the competition to motivate such innovative problem-solving you refer to.
Given private prisons' successful track-record nationwide, privatization in Virginia deserves an extensive test drive. James C. Miller III is chairman of Virginia Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation in Charlottesville.
by CNB